Hey Cindy, don't know if you've wasted the 10 minutes of your life that you'll never get back like I did, but this kid has videos on YouTube. He's one of those former high school athletes that is picking up the game in his early-mid 20's. the type that is athletic and coordinated enough to rally with average 4.0 guys.

I would bet this kid will get bumped in December to 3.5 and be OK. He'll run into the backboards and junkballers there and have a few frustrating defeats, but for the most part he will win out of pure athleticism. Just like he did at 3.0, which he probably never belonged at.

4.0 will be another bag for him, as there will be plenty of folks there that are as athletic and technically sound. He won't fly through that level, but he'd have to be a total mental midget to get smoked. He likely will come to rest there for a while unless he plays up and gets some fluke wins.

4.5 is the level where I think he'd get it handed to him. Most guys at 4.5 have 20+ years on the court in one way or the other. I'm the type that played juniors and quit at 17 and then picked it up again 10 years ago in my late 20's. others picked it up after college and are now 40+. That level of experience is what will be the toughest to overcome for Police.

Click to expand...

Just so we are clear, I wouldn't dare guess how far NTRPolice can go. 4.0? 4.5? It all depends on whether he can get quality instruction, can work on fitness, can get lots of match play. That takes time, money and dedication (plus luck to stay healthy).

My point in mentioning our former TT poster's 4.0 wake-up call is that the leap between levels is huge, and the higher you get the harder it is to improve. Perhaps TT looks good on camera and has pretty strokes, but we all know how difficult it can be to translate that to match play. I hope he achieves his goals, whatever those might be.

In the meantime, he should perhaps defer to people who play types of tennis he has never once played (ladies 7.5 combo, as in this thread) and those who actually have scaled the men's 4.5 mountain.

If he's serious, however, I do have words of advice based on what I have seen at TT:

LeeD cycle....
LeeD answers a post, as he sees as reality. LeeD posts something he did back in the distant past.
Someone comes in and exxagerates LeeD's claims, and also says it's impossible, based on HIS experience with himself.
LeeD says not everyone is the same.
The debate goes on, to no satifaction.
LeeD says..."TRY this, then come back"....
The critics don't try it, but keep refuting his claims.

Just so we are clear, I wouldn't dare guess how far NTRPolice can go. 4.0? 4.5? It all depends on whether he can get quality instruction, can work on fitness, can get lots of match play. That takes time, money and dedication (plus luck to stay healthy).

My point in mentioning our former TT poster's 4.0 wake-up call is that the leap between levels is huge, and the higher you get the harder it is to improve. Perhaps TT looks good on camera and has pretty strokes, but we all know how difficult it can be to translate that to match play. I hope he achieves his goals, whatever those might be.

In the meantime, he should perhaps defer to people who play types of tennis he has never once played (ladies 7.5 combo, as in this thread) and those who actually have scaled the men's 4.5 mountain.

If he's serious, however, I do have words of advice based on what I have seen at TT:

If you want to move up, don't get married and don't have kids.

Click to expand...

I'm purely gauging his potential talent. Sure, other things could get in the way, but I've seen guys like this and he has the core of what it takes to get to 4.5.

No higher than that though. I don't see his ball striking evolving to 5.0. Had he started 10-15 years ago, maybe.

Dunno about all the lessons, etc that folks dump cash on. I haven't paid for more than a dozen or so clinics (and never a private) in the past decade. Reliable hitting partners were my thing. And watching lots of tennis.

I know this is sorta a derail but I cant send PM's and I didnt want to make this its own thread... I guess ill post this here since most of the on-topic conversation has died down anyway...

I radar gunned my serve tonight. It was 97, out wide. We are all in agreement that the new radar unit may not be working properly and we're going to try the old one next week.

We found it strange that 3 people with their biggest serve all topped out at exactly 97. The guy who runs this used to be #1 in the state many years ago, he couldnt break 100 (he topped out at 91 if I heard right) and he said he really hopes that he didnt waste money on the new one.

It does seem to read speeds slower than 100 pretty accurately, but we're skeptical about its ability to read over 100. The average speeds of the serves from 3.0-3.5 women were about 40-50 mph on their second serves. The men were serving about 70-80 on their second's. These readings were taken during points.

After most people left we all tried to hit as big as possible. Most people seemed to serve exactly 91. One person hit 95. Three people hit 97.

This is not the same guy I take lessons from.

We'll see next week...

Now that I think about it... we should have turned it on kmh to see if it "caps" at 156.

NP, I had a similar experience on Saturday at a charity event in Mill Valley where they had a fast-serve booth set up benefiting the local high school team. 86 mph was the best I could do in ten tries. The highest up to then was 88. The next day I went by and the highest recorded was 102. Last year at the same booth I did 106 and my serve has improved over the year so should be faster than that. This was way off, there should have been servers who could do at least 120 there.

I know this is sorta a derail but I cant send PM's and I didnt want to make this its own thread... I guess ill post this here since most of the on-topic conversation has died down anyway...

I radar gunned my serve tonight. It was 97, out wide. We are all in agreement that the new radar unit may not be working properly and we're going to try the old one next week.

We found it strange that 3 people with their biggest serve all topped out at exactly 97. The guy who runs this used to be #1 in the state many years ago, he couldnt break 100 (he topped out at 91 if I heard right) and he said he really hopes that he didnt waste money on the new one.

It does seem to read speeds slower than 100 pretty accurately, but we're skeptical about its ability to read over 100. The average speeds of the serves from 3.0-3.5 women were about 40-50 mph on their second serves. The men were serving about 70-80 on their second's. These readings were taken during points.

After most people left we all tried to hit as big as possible. Most people seemed to serve exactly 91. One person hit 95. Three people hit 97.

This is not the same guy I take lessons from.

We'll see next week...

Now that I think about it... we should have turned it on kmh to see if it "caps" at 156.

Click to expand...

Well, those speeds are in line with your technique. Be proud, you're now able to truthfully state "my serve is almost 100 mph". That ain't bad. I'm 3 levels above you and that's all I've got too.

Well, those speeds are in line with your technique. Be proud, you're now able to truthfully state "my serve is almost 100 mph". That ain't bad. I'm 3 levels above you and that's all I've got too.

Click to expand...

Uh... lol.

I didnt use my new motion for the 97 mph, I used my old motion. It took me about 5 balls to get the timing right before I hit 91. It took me about 5 more balls to hit the 97, in the box, out wide.

While 97 isnt anything to be ashamed of, the accuracy of the handheld unit is in question seeing that 3 people with their biggest, flattest serves all topped out at exactly 97. Only 1 person hit 95, and most people were topping out at 91.

I'm pretty sure if everyone there was as "delusional" as I am, im pretty sure the guy would have just told us. He would definitely say it too and I doubt he would take it a step further to test it himself and then say "I hope I didnt just waste $200. We can test the old radar gun next week."

I didnt use my new motion for the 97 mph, I used my old motion. It took me about 5 balls to get the timing right before I hit 91. It took me about 5 more balls to hit the 97, in the box, out wide.

While 97 isnt anything to be ashamed of, the accuracy of the handheld unit is in question seeing that 3 people with their biggest, flattest serves all topped out at exactly 97. Only 1 person hit 95, and most people were topping out at 91.

I'm pretty sure if everyone there was as "delusional" as I am, im pretty sure the guy would have just told us. He would definitely say it too and I doubt he would take it a step further to test it himself and then say "I hope I didnt just waste $200. We can test the old radar gun next week."

Click to expand...

Yea, it's gotta be the gun.

I caught a 60 pound fish last week, but the scale only said it was 45 pounds. I'm going to get a new scale that says its 60 so I can be right. It might take a few different scales, but when it reads 60 ill know I found an accurate scale.

I caught a 60 pound fish last week, but the scale only said it was 45 pounds. I'm going to get a new scale that says its 60 so I can be right. It might take a few different scales, but when it reads 60 ill know I found an accurate scale.

Click to expand...

That makes you sound incredibly ignorant.

-3 people with 100+ mph capability all cap out at exactly 97 mph serving as flat as they can on their best strike.
-Guy who owns the gun is the former ITF #1 singles player in the state and (granted hes older now) can only max out at 91 mph.
-If he thought we were all delusional he would have just said so.

I'm a bit disturbed how absolute you people seem to think radar guns are. I'm pretty sure that if radar guns were as full proof and as accurate as you think they are no speeding ticket would ever be overturned provided it has a radar gun giving the speed.

You sounded reasonable, but this time you're just way out of line.

I started Googling around...

It turns out that some radar guns are capped at certain speeds. The radar gun below is capped at 110 MPH. That's not the one we used, but im just throwing that out there.

Now, read carefully. This one is capped at like 300-something MPH, so we know thats not the issue. However... after reading the comments...

One of the feedbacks from a person measuring a tennis ball has to say:

"i have your Pocket Radar Personal Speed Radar, and i am very dissapointed !
i am using this for tennis ball speed, and the messurements are for sure very very bad !
so about 15 to 20 miles per hour lower !!!!
can i do something wrong ? but i do not think so ...
is my device wrong ???
give me please any advice, thanks a lot."

In response, the president of Pocket Radar says:

"We have many top Tennis coaches using the Pocket Radar for training. We are going to be at the USPTA tennis show this week. So I am sure we can fix your problem. Right off the top of my head, it sounds like if you are getting readings of 15 to 20 miles per hour lower then it may be that the Pocket Radar is set in Meters per Second (MPS) instead of Miles per Hour (MPH). This is very easy to change. The other thing that may be happening is that you may be taking readings at an off-angle. All Radar guns need to have their beam aimed in-line with path of the ball to get an accurate reading. If you are off angle by 25 degrees then the readings will be 10% low. The best way to use it in tennis is to be about 20 feet back behind the server with the radar held up at the level where the ball will leave the racket. Then tap the red button just as the ball is dropping from the top of the toss just as the racket starts to swing forward. "

As you can see, you cant just be anywhere in relation to the ball when you measure it. It sounds like we were not using it correctly. The 3 people at 97 MPH must have been a strange coincidence, but the radar gunner was off to the side and not directly behind the server and the radar unit was definitely not being held up at the contact point. It's very possible now the readings were 10% low and some of those serves we're actually going over 100.

I'm pretty sure i've said somewhere in another thread that the position of the radar unit matters and people just brushed that off. Now we know.

I caught a 60 pound fish last week, but the scale only said it was 45 pounds. I'm going to get a new scale that says its 60 so I can be right. It might take a few different scales, but when it reads 60 ill know I found an accurate scale.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty good at the high jump, even though I only started doing it a couple of years ago.

In fact, I can high jump 6.5 feet. I smack the bar with my forehead pretty much every time, but believe me, I can do it.

As for the rest - I'm jumping in before finishing the thread. I'm a 3.0C and I play against a lot of 3.5C women as well as a fair number of 4.0 & 3.5 men. My 7.0 mixed partner who is a solid 4.0C player struggles to put away easy volleys at the net. That doesn't mean he won't return them, but that they aren't automatic winners and because of it allows our opponents back into the match.

The women I play with and against resemble nothing like the mythical 3.5 ladies you describe upthread. Yes, we have a lot of the shots you mentioned we should have, but more often than not, don't pull them off. Having the stroke and being able to execute it consistently are two different things. (eta) 3.5's, by their very nature of being 3.5's aren't going to be consistent. I mean they seem pretty damn consistent to me, but I'm a 3.0 and I already seem levels more consistent than I was a year ago.

I'm pretty good at the high jump, even though I only started doing it a couple of years ago.

In fact, I can high jump 6.5 feet. I smack the bar with my forehead pretty much every time, but believe me, I can do it.

I just need to find the right yardstick.

Click to expand...

The driving range by my house has a marker at 300 yards and I know I can drive it 300. Then, I couldn't get my drives to the sign. It has to be mismarked because when I move up 50 yards, I can easily reach the 300 yard mark.

I told the driving range owner about this problem and he looked at me like I was crazy. That guy is so ignorant.

And fwiw, of course the position of the gun matters; it's measuring bounced back waves and the closer in line with moving object, the more accurate. (Small incident angles are fine but they won't measure from the side.)

I have a pocket radar; it's amusing to play around with. I find the very experienced (teaching pros/ex-div 1 types) are impressed with its accuracy and size; the young kids and rec players always shake their heads and comment that it has to be reading too low. lol.

I caught a 60 pound fish last week, but the scale only said it was 45 pounds. I'm going to get a new scale that says its 60 so I can be right. It might take a few different scales, but when it reads 60 ill know I found an accurate scale.

Click to expand...

Ha, well at least your scale is better than mine; my 60 pound fish only registered as 38 pounds. Needless to say, I'm very disappointed at the quality control of ACME Scale Co.

And fwiw, of course the position of the gun matters; it's measuring bounced back waves and the closer in line with moving object, the more accurate. (Small incident angles are fine but they won't measure from the side.)

I have a pocket radar; it's amusing to play around with. I find the very experienced (teaching pros/ex-div 1 types) are impressed with its accuracy and size; the young kids and rec players always shake their heads and comment that it has to be reading too low. lol.

Click to expand...

The owner of that gun is the former #1 singles player in the state. He's also a USPTA-1 coach and he bought that unit at the conference this past month.

He was only able to serve 91. After two other guys and myself topped it out at 97 we all started to suspect something was up. After Googling around we found someone else who was using it for tennis and seemed to be getting slower than usual results.

Apparently being 25 deg. off can produce results 10% slower. Also, being above the level of contact and being directly inline with the balls path of travel affects accuracy of the result.

The gun is accurate to 1 mph, but only assuming you're using it right, at the right vantage point.

(and for those conspiracy theorists, he's not the teacher in my video. The teacher in my video is a USPTA-1 coach and played college tennis for two teams, but AFAIK, he didnt continue after college)

I know and all my former baseball teammates know that I could throw a 100mph fastball. But the guns that the college coaches would use were terrible and only read that my fastest pitch was 82. If not for those faulty guns, I would've been a college star and probably a pro baseball pitcher. They were so ignorant.

After two other guys and myself topped it out at 97 we all started to suspect something was up. After Googling around we found someone else who was using it for tennis and seemed to be getting slower than usual results.

What matters in tennis is whether you win or not. What has your 2012 USTA league season been like? What leagues have you played, and what is your W/L for the year?

If you can show that you are actually winning matches, especially matches above your computer rating, that would be more impressive than telling people you can hit a 97 mph serve into the box once after a bunch of misses.

Cindy -- thinking there is some real money to be made selling radar guns that skew high

What really matters is if you have the fastest and most impressive serve speeds in your area...
If everyone who watches you serve stare in wide eyed wonder, your ball smoked thru the cyclone fencing, or thru the green wind netting, then you have a real serve.

I've actually not cared about speed so much until I met the experts on this forum. Granted, it may still be possible that I have estimated my serve a little faster than it actually it, I think its laughable that people think my serve is going 80.

It just so happened that he was playing with his new toy last night and noticed it cause he was poking fun at one of the girls who served a tap over at like 44 mph. Now we know that being at an off angle can result in slower numbers, her serve must have been going 50.

People who want to accuse me of "measuring from the bottom" or finding a "nice scale" have integrity problems. I want the most accurate, consistent and repeatable measurement possible. To do this you must measure the same way every time.

That way as described by the manufacturer is 20 ft. from directly behind the server, inline with the balls path, from a vantage point over the height at which the ball is struck.

The fact that people just want to "point and shoot" at anything to get readings is beyond me. When I attempt to educate them, they laugh and say im looking for a "nice scale", or "measure from the bottom".

I'm interested too, NTRP. I'm a 3.0 who won about 50% of his 3.0 matches this year, and based on your youtube videos I think you and I would match up very evenly.

Click to expand...

Oh, I didnt see the requests for my record.

I am 11W-2L for 3.0/6.0/7.0 this year. I'm assuming you're talking about 7.0 as well since im a "3.0" with a "4.0".

Only two of those are matches are at 3.0/6.0, the rest are 7.0 mixed with 4.0 women. Of those two losses, one was my very first "7.0 mixed" match ever against the top team in the flight, the other loss was against... the other top team in the playoffs from the other flight. The second time around I did much better, but its hard being a 3.0 guy with a 4.0 girl in mixed. Most of the teams run two solid 3.5 players or a 4.0 guy with a "fresh" 3.0 girl.

My partners have to be solid because the strategy of "playing the girls" remains the same, regardless of whos NTRP is higher. I havnt seen any "obviously strong" 4.0 women 3.0 guy combos where they play the guy instead but I suppose its possible. I have seen a 3.0 self-rated (guy) college player guys who openly talk about it....... almost to gloat (it was a jr. college, but still) and just last week I played a 3.5 girl who played college in Japan in 2005, and played 9.0 in 2009. Had to serve the both those players forehands. Girls backhand was too solid. Guys forehand was making too many errors.

I learned in extreme cases like that generic "play the girl" or "play the weakness" doesnt really work so much. You just have to play great tennis and make great shots. Serve the guy big and risk the double. Serve the girl two solid second serves to save on doubles. For me, as a someone with terrible volleys, camp the baseline and wait for the net player to do work, or wait for an easy shot I can rip somewhere and come in to the net.

Kinda went off on a rant there... but im deliriously tired and I have a match today.

I am 11W-2L for 3.0/6.0/7.0 this year. I'm assuming you're talking about 7.0 as well since im a "3.0" with a "4.0".

Click to expand...

Thanks. That's interesting. It sounds like you didn't play enough league tennis to move up to 3.5C. Maybe 3.5M? Sounds like there's no chance of a double-bump.

Anyway . . . I think you will have an interesting time should you start playing some 7.0 mixed with a 3.5 female partner instead of a 4.0 lady. Right now, you don't have to protect your 4.0 women partners. All you have to do is play your game and avoid screwing up your own shots too much.

All heck is going to break loose at 7.0 mixed, though. If your volleys stink, then it will be hard for you to help your 3.5 partner hold (and believe me, she's gonna need help). Even if you hit killer serves like you suggest, you only get to serve 25% of the time. I have won many matches when we barely got the dude's serve into play but feasted on the opposing 3.5 woman's service games (by smacking a return deep and running to net) while her partner stood there like a potted plant and watched the carnage.

I guess my point is that all this talk and focus on serving might be somewhat misplaced if you plan to play doubles. Doubles requires high-end volleys, particularly from a dude playing mixed with a woman of the same USTA level (e.g. 3.5/3.5, 4.0/4.0). If your serve has the speed and consistency you claim, you might start spending more of your lesson time on volleys. I say this to be helpful -- the people I know who didn't take the time to develop decent volley technique at 3.0 are very unhappy campers at 4.0.

My partners have to be solid because the strategy of "playing the girls" remains the same, regardless of whos NTRP is higher. . . . . For me, as a someone with terrible volleys, camp the baseline and wait for the net player to do work, or wait for an easy shot I can rip somewhere and come in to the net.

Click to expand...

Take my word for it: Having terrible volleys, camping at the baseline and waiting for you partner to do the work, and waiting for an easy shot to rip is going to hit a wall. That wall is 8.0 mixed, maybe even 7.0 mixed with a weaker partner.

There's a whole new, fabulous world awaiting you. It is the world of "Playing with a weaker partner." Things are gonna get interesting in a hurry.